Lula slams US sanctions on Brazilian judges in Bolsonaro case
BRASÍLIA: Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Saturday denounced US visa sanctions on judges in the coup case against former leader Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing ally of Donald Trump.
'My solidarity and support go to the justices of the Supreme Federal Court, who have been affected by yet another arbitrary and completely baseless measure by the United States government,' Lula said in a statement posted on X.
'The interference of one country in another's justice system is unacceptable and violates the basic principles of respect and sovereignty between nations.'
Bolsonaro is on trial for allegedly seeking to stay in power by overturning the 2022 election won by Lula.
Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes ruled Friday that Bolsonaro must wear an electronic monitoring device, stay home at night and stay off social media as he awaits a verdict.
Hours later the US revoked the visa for Moraes and his 'allies' on the court, as well as their immediate family members.
'Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes's political witch hunt against Jair Bolsonaro created a persecution and censorship complex so sweeping that it not only violates basic rights of Brazilians but also extends beyond Brazil's shores to target Americans,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.
Moraes, one of the judges in Bolsonaro's trial for allegedly seeking to nullify Lula's election victory, said the restrictions were necessary given the 'hostile acts' against Brazil by the accused and his son and former politician Eduardo Bolsonaro.
He said in a ruling Saturday that Eduardo Bolsonaro 'intensified the illicit conduct… through various posts and attacks on the Federal Supreme Court on social media' in reaction to Friday's ruling.
Moraes cited a Facebook post in which the younger Bolsonaro called the judge 'a gangster in robes'.
Both Trump and Bolsonaro have claimed to be victims of political persecution, and the former frequently verbally attacks judges at home over their rulings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
3 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Maduro's party sweeps Venezuelan mayoral vote as opposition boycotts
Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro casts his vote during municipal elections in Caracas yesterday. (AP pic) CARACAS : Venezuela's ruling party won the majority of mayoral seats yesterday in elections boycotted by the main opposition, coinciding with the anniversary of president Nicolas Maduro's re-election last year. The ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) won 285 of 335 mayoralties, according to Maduro's own projections, which he celebrated with supporters early today in Caracas's Bolivar Square. 'Victory, popular victory!' Maduro shouted. 'Democracy and peace, the unity of the people, have triumphed.' The country's electoral authority, accused of loyalty to Maduro, put turnout at 44%. That represents just over 6 million voters, although polling stations in several cities showed low turnout throughout the day. In one year, Maduro has won the presidency, absolute control of parliament, 23 of 24 governorships and now municipal power. Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, whose candidate lost to Maduro in the presidential election last year, said on X: 'What happened between July 28, 2024, and today?' 'That day, 70% of the country voted for EDMUNDO GONZALEZ, and today, 90% said NO to MADURO,' referring to what she said was the abstention rate. A dissident wing of Machado's movement participated in the elections and, according to Maduro, won 50 mayoralties. 'The new opposition,' the president declared, while the opposition leader branded them Maduro collaborators. Maduro plans to lead a demonstration today to celebrate the anniversary of his victory, which the US and a dozen other countries did not recognise. 'Maduro is NOT the President of Venezuela and his regime is NOT the legitimate government,' US secretary of state Marco Rubio said on X yesterday, calling the president the leader of a 'narco-terror' organisation. This month, Washington and Caracas negotiated a prisoner swap that saw the release of 10 Americans and US residents imprisoned in Venezuela for 252 Venezuelan migrants detained in a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Malay Mail
13 hours ago
- Malay Mail
When maps can lead to serious conflict: Another thorn in the Thai-Cambodian border dispute — Phar Kim Beng
JULY 28 — In South-east Asia, borders are not just lines — they are living legacies of colonial cartography, shifting sovereignties, and unresolved nation-building. The latest escalation in the Thai-Cambodian conflict reveals how something as seemingly technical as a map scale can become a powder keg of geopolitical tension. At the centre of this intensifying dispute lies a bitter disagreement: Thailand insists on the use of a 1:50,000 map; Cambodia refuses anything but the 1:200,000 version. To the untrained eye, these figures may seem inconsequential. But for seasoned observers of regional politics, this divergence underscores a broader battle over historical legitimacy, territorial sovereignty, and competing national narratives. To understand the friction, we must start with the scales themselves. Thailand's preferred map, at a scale of 1:50,000, is a product of meticulous cartography developed by its Royal Survey Department with technical input from the United States. It is based on the Mercator projection, which privileges accurate distance and direction — critical for military, civil, and administrative functions. This map presents a high-resolution portrait of the Thai-Cambodian border: every ridge, river, road, and village finely rendered, leaving little to interpretation. In contrast, Cambodia clings to a 1:200,000 scale map, originally produced by France during its colonial rule. This map, though far less detailed — 1 centimetre equating to 2 kilometres — is deeply embedded in Cambodia's legal and historical identity. Anchored in the Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904 and 1907, the map is not only a symbolic relic but the very foundation of Cambodia's official border claims. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) famously drew upon this map when awarding Cambodia control of the Preah Vihear Temple in 1962. While the ICJ did not endorse the map's precision, its citation in such a landmark case fortified Cambodia's reliance on it. At the heart of the controversy is not just scale, but projection. Thailand's Mercator-based map distorts area but preserves direction and shape — ideal for navigation but problematic for representing equatorial landmasses. Cambodia's Sinusoidal projection, meanwhile, preserves area but distorts distances, especially at the edges. These divergent projections cannot be reconciled through simple overlay or conversion. The same stretch of land will appear in different locations depending on the map used. In areas like the Dangrek Mountains — home to contested temples, scam-infested outposts, and mine-laden terrain — the consequences of such discrepancies are not abstract. They are dangerous. An aerial view shows displaced people seeking shelter near a pagoda in Oddar Meanchey province, after fleeing their homes near the Cambodia-Thailand border July 26, 2025. — AFP pic Cambodia's rejection of Thailand's map stems from both technical incompatibility and principled opposition. Phnom Penh views Thailand's 1:50,000 map as a unilateral product — one not mutually agreed upon nor recognised in the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding that was supposed to guide border demarcation. By contrast, Cambodia sees its French-produced map as a jointly recognised baseline, affirmed through decades of diplomacy and legal proceedings. Cambodia further argues that Thailand's insistence on its newer map amounts to an ex post facto revision of territorial claims. Thailand, for its part, sees the Cambodian map as outdated, imprecise, and ill-suited to modern boundary work. Bangkok contends that the colonial-era map does not meet contemporary geospatial standards and was never intended for granular demarcation. Thai officials assert that sticking to such an antiquated artifact is neither practical nor fair in a world where satellite imagery, GPS, and GIS tools offer pinpoint accuracy. Yet, what may appear fair in technical terms may be perceived as threatening in historical and emotional terms. Indeed, behind the disagreement over maps lies a deeper asymmetry of perception. For Cambodia, maps are instruments of justice — evidence of colonial wounds and international validation. For Thailand, they are tools of utility — meant to reflect ground realities, not memorialise imperial cartography. When these worldviews collide, diplomacy becomes cartographically constrained, and escalation becomes dangerously probable. This is not the first time borders drawn on paper have spilled into bloodshed. The 2008 clashes over the Preah Vihear temple led to military confrontations, international mediation, and UN involvement. The scars from that episode linger. And now, in 2025, we see history repeat itself — this time not just over temples, but over how to measure the land they sit upon. Therein lies a sobering truth: when two sovereign nations cannot agree on the very tools to define their borders, the prospect of peaceful resolution grows dim. Without consensus on the instruments of demarcation — whether satellite-generated or colonial-derived — negotiations are reduced to parallel monologues. Dialogue becomes doubly difficult when the conceptual foundations are misaligned. What then is the path forward? It is time Asean steps up — not to impose — but to facilitate a technological and diplomatic compromise. Third-party cartographic mediation, perhaps involving neutral institutions like the United Nations or regional geospatial experts, could help develop an integrated digital mapping framework that overlays both scales and projections. A hybrid platform could account for historical maps while reconciling them with modern data. What matters is not to erase history or override sovereignty, but to find common ground in shared facts. The Thai-Cambodian border dispute is not merely a technical disagreement. It is a geopolitical and psychological struggle over history, power, and identity. Until both sides can agree on the most basic of instruments — a map — their path to peace will remain dangerously convoluted. Because in South-east Asia, as this dispute reminds us, even maps can lead to war. And when they do, it is not the lines that bleed — but the people who live along them. *Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is the Director of the Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). He served as a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University and is a Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar. **This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Star
17 hours ago
- The Star
Brazil investors warn of political impact of US tariffs in election
Unpopular move: Protesters dressed as police, Trump and Bolsonaro demonstrating against the US president's announcement of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods and against a US report that cited counterfeit product sales in Brazil, in Sao Paulo. — AP SAO PAULO: At a large financial market gathering in Sao Paulo, Donald Trump's threat to impose 50% tariffs on Brazil barely registers as a primary economic concern. What's truly unsettling money managers is the political fallout – the broader storm unleashed by the US president ahead of next year's elections. Since Trump issued the July 9 threat in retaliation for what he called a 'witch hunt' against Jair Bolsonaro, his conservative ally in Brazil, leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has seen a boost in popularity that's strengthening his reelection bid. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro's allies have struggled to mount a cohesive and persuasive response. 'The macroeconomic impact is small and the microeconomic risks are already priced in,' Ruy Alves, a partner and manager at Kinea Investimentos, said in an interview last Friday on the sidelines of the event organised by XP Inc. Investors fear that, under Lula, Brazil's finances would continue to deteriorate, with a negative impact on the currency and inflation. That would force the central bank to keep a very restrictive monetary policy in place, creating a vicious cycle that would eventually hit growth. 'The political impact could be big. And it could have an impact on the exchange rate,' Rodrigo Azevedo, co-chief investment officer at Ibiuna Investimentos, said at the same event. The real has so far avoided a major sell-off as double-digit local interest rates add to the appeal of the Brazilian currency against a globally weakening dollar. It has still weakened about 2% since Trump made his threat. Most of those losses came last Friday after Bloomberg News reported that Trump's administration is seeking new legal basis for imposing tariffs on Brazil, given that the country has a trade deficit with the United States. The fact that the Brazilian economy is somewhat closed limits the impact it will sufffer from the tariffs, according to the economists present at the event. XP estimates that a 50% rate would shave no more than half a percentage point off Brazil's growth in 2026. Some Brazilian companies could suffer a severe blow, but that has been largely priced in by markets, according to Alves, from Kinea. The most prominent case is aircraft manufacturer Embraer SA, whose stock price has sank almost 20% since the tariff threat. Yet veteran investor Luis Stuhlberger sounded more sceptical of the positive political effect that US tariffs may have for Lula in the longer term. 'This is just a short-lived gain,' he told the audience. 'Companies will go bankrupt, layoffs will happen, there will be silent defaults, strikes in agribusiness, truck drivers striking. The blame will fall on the government.' — Bloomberg
